Do Teachers Question the Reality of Pain in Their Students? A Survey Using the Concept of Pain Inventory-Proxy (COPI-Proxy)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An assessment of a teacher's concept of their student's pain could be useful to guide preventative and targeted school-based pain science education. We aimed to assess a teacher's own concept of pain against their concept of their student's pain and examine the psychometric properties of the tool. Teachers of 10-12-year-old children were invited to participate in an online survey via social media. We modified the Concept of Pain Inventory (COPI) by inserting a vignette (COPI-Proxy), and we included questions to explore teacher stigma. Overall, a sample of 233 teachers participated in the survey. The COPI-Proxy scores showed that teachers can conceptualize their student's pain separately but are influenced by their own beliefs. Only 76% affirmed the pain in the vignette as real. Teachers used potentially stigmatizing language to describe pain in their survey responses. The COPI-Proxy had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.72) and moderate convergent validity with the COPI (r = 0.56). The results show the potential benefit of the COPI-Proxy for assessing someone's concept of another's pain, particularly for teachers who are important social influencers of children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".